Making CRT easier to read?

FWIW XP Home.

Is there anything I can get to anlarge the text and increase the contrast
on the computer CRT? I have to set closer than I like with my tri-focals.
I've looked at computer glasses on Amazon but they don't say anything about
enlarging the image. I tried the display icon in Control Panel and set the
text to largest.

The monitor is a Microtek 815c. I can't figure out how to use the display
adjustments. Had to DL a User's Manual. Will look at it later. I suspect
adjustments won't help much if at all.

Any suggestions? Only thing I can think of is a larger screen. I'm hoping
for a magical pair of glasses.

TIA


--
I love a good meal! That's why I don't cook.

KenK wrote:
FWIW XP Home.

Is there anything I can get to anlarge the text and increase the contrast
on the computer CRT? I have to set closer than I like with my tri-focals.
I've looked at computer glasses on Amazon but they don't say anything
about enlarging the image. I tried the display icon in Control Panel and
set the text to largest.

The monitor is a Microtek 815c. I can't figure out how to use the display
adjustments. Had to DL a User's Manual. Will look at it later. I suspect
adjustments won't help much if at all.

Any suggestions? Only thing I can think of is a larger screen. I'm hoping
for a magical pair of glasses.

TIA

AFAIK, computer glasses, like reading glasses, are meant to correct your
vision for reading the screen at a certain distance due to presbyopia, and
not simply act as magnifying glasses. But you can adjust some text size
settings in the Display settings (right mouse click on the desktop, and it
brings up Display Properties, Appearance Tab).

Ken,

I'm hoping for a magical pair of glasses.

You rang master ? :-)

Have you already taken a look at what "magnify.exe" in "C:\windows\system32"
can do for you ? It won't exactly do what you asked for (alter the whole
screen), but it could be helpfull.

.... which made remember something else: The "Accessibility Options" in the
"Control panel" ("Start" - "Settings" - "Control Panel"). Go to the tab
"Display" and press the "Settings" button. From there you can select
contrast and character size combinations from the dropdown list.

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

KenK wrote:

XP Home.

Is there anything I can get to anlarge the text and increase the contrast
on the computer CRT? I have to set closer than I like with my tri-focals.
I've looked at computer glasses on Amazon but they don't say anything about
enlarging the image. I tried the display icon in Control Panel and set the
text to largest.

The monitor is a Microtek 815c. I can't figure out how to use the display
adjustments. Had to DL a User's Manual. Will look at it later. I suspect
adjustments won't help much if at all.

Any suggestions? Only thing I can think of is a larger screen. I'm hoping
for a magical pair of glasses.

TIA

Going to a higher resolution monitor does not change the number of
pixels the characters will use on the monitor. You need to up the
number of pixels used per character height and width. To do that,
change the DPI (dots per inch) to a higher setting. With more pixels
(dots) per inch, more are used to display the same size character.
Since the pixels are fixed in the monitor, the result is to make the
characters larger and easier to read.

The default DPI is 96 (100%) based on old CRT technology. I changed
mine to 120 (125%) to make character a bit larger to read.

Presumably you already tested changes in the font smoothing (aka
ClearType). That actually blends (blurs) the pixels to interpolate the
curvature of the characters. While this will make the characters look
more solid, it will also make them more fuzzy. You might want to turn
off ClearType and suffer the less smooth blending and get sharper
characters that look a bit jaggy. I don't remember how the ClearType
wizard worked back in Windows XP. In Windows 7, and after enabling it,
you are walked through a series of screens asking you which example
looks better to you. This is like when going to the optometrist who
asks if #1 or #2 looks better as they flip around the lenses.

KenK wrote:

Microtek 815c.

Also, that monitor is probably around 16 years old. I saw a user in a
forum note in 2014 that he had this monitor for 11 years, so 5 years
later that monitor is now 16 years old. CRTs go out of focus which
cannot be adjusted out. They also lose brightness, and upping the
brightness results in loss of focus or contrast. Could be you've been
upping the brightness to compensate for a corroded cathode ray gun (the
heater). There is a trick of overheating the filament to burn off the
corrosion but it is hazardous: at the higher temperature and current,
the emitter could burn out and the monitor goes dead (no electrons
anymore to illuminate the phosphor on the inside of the screen). Shops
used to do that trick but had the customer sign a waiver acknowledging
the attempt could result in a completely dead CRT monitor. I did it
once accidentally when I reattached the multi-pin connector on the back
of the tube's neck resulting in the wrong voltage on the heater,
overheating it, realized what I did when the screen became very bright,
removed and repositioned the connector (you'd think they'd be
polarized), and the monitor was bright and I even had to turn down the
brightness. Gee, I fixed it. Luckily that was back in tech school and
any CRTs sent there for repair were waivered because they had students
working on them.

With such an old monitor, and with almost no shops working on them
anymore, try lowering the brightness to reduce the bloom of the
characters. That could result in an overly dim monitor that would have
sharper but dimmer characters, so just as hard to read as before. You
can't get around CRTs getting old and losing brightness and focus. Time
to start budgeting for a new monitor. If it's an LCD/LED, make sure you
set the screen resolution in Windows the same as the monitor's native
resolution. You get fuzziness if you set the Windows resolution
different due to interpolation between pixels.

VanguardLH wrote:
KenK wrote:

Microtek 815c.

Also, that monitor is probably around 16 years old. I saw a user in a
forum note in 2014 that he had this monitor for 11 years, so 5 years
later that monitor is now 16 years old. CRTs go out of focus which
cannot be adjusted out. They also lose brightness, and upping the
brightness results in loss of focus or contrast. Could be you've been
upping the brightness to compensate for a corroded cathode ray gun (the
heater). There is a trick of overheating the filament to burn off the
corrosion but it is hazardous: at the higher temperature and current,
the emitter could burn out and the monitor goes dead (no electrons
anymore to illuminate the phosphor on the inside of the screen). Shops
used to do that trick but had the customer sign a waiver acknowledging
the attempt could result in a completely dead CRT monitor. I did it
once accidentally when I reattached the multi-pin connector on the back
of the tube's neck resulting in the wrong voltage on the heater,
overheating it, realized what I did when the screen became very bright,
removed and repositioned the connector (you'd think they'd be
polarized), and the monitor was bright and I even had to turn down the
brightness. Gee, I fixed it. Luckily that was back in tech school and
any CRTs sent there for repair were waivered because they had students
working on them.

With such an old monitor, and with almost no shops working on them
anymore, try lowering the brightness to reduce the bloom of the
characters. That could result in an overly dim monitor that would have
sharper but dimmer characters, so just as hard to read as before. You
can't get around CRTs getting old and losing brightness and focus. Time
to start budgeting for a new monitor. If it's an LCD/LED, make sure you
set the screen resolution in Windows the same as the monitor's native
resolution. You get fuzziness if you set the Windows resolution
different due to interpolation between pixels.


It's an LCD with VGA input. 1280x1024. Probably TN (twisted nematic)

https://www.superwarehouse.com/Micro...90325/p/431703

Before buying any other LCD, you'd want to review
the connectors on the video card faceplate, to see
what is available. If you wanted some mythical display device
with "paper like" res, you'd want HDMI or DisplayPort as
those support larger resolutions. My WinXP machine has
neither HDMI nor DisplayPort. My upper limit (maybe), might
be 2560x1600, but more likely guaranteed to hit 1920x1080.

I'd look for an IPS or VA panel, rather than a TN, because
the TN needs to be tilted a bit for best color. The TN
doesn't have the "viewing angle independence" that IPS has.

As an example of an extreme, this is 3840 x 2160 at 23.8" .
It's a Dell so you could see if it was still on the Dell site.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...9SIABT15UE8994

1 x mini-DisplayPort
1 x DisplayPort (in), 1 x DisplayPort (out)
1 x HDMI

So that doesn't have VGA, and I would expect would cause a problem
for the OP. Still, it's an example of how many pixels they can
put into a desktop-sized panel. SmartPhones manage higher DPI
ratings, but are of course, too small to use.

And on WinXP, there probably isn't the HiDPI support
for a thing like that, and there's probably a limit on
the "percentage setting" to make a monitor like that,
readable. On my WinXP machine, my video card can be
coerced into driving HDMI, but it's no-where near
good enough to make 3840x2160. Only my newest box
can drive a super monitor like that.

https://i.postimg.cc/D0R9DTcz/percen...play-winxp.gif

So while it's fun to dream about large pixel counts,
there are barriers to entry for an established system owner.

And choosing a lesser monitor solution, might not give
enough improvement. You could select a 1280x1024 which was
72 inches wide, but then you'd have to sit six feet
back from it :-) The spectrum of solutions is quite large,
and likely, mostly useless.

Paul

In message , Paul
writes:
VanguardLH wrote:
KenK wrote:

Microtek 815c.
Also, that monitor is probably around 16 years old. I saw a user in
a
forum note in 2014 that he had this monitor for 11 years, so 5 years

I too thought it was/is a CRT, not least because Ken refers to it as
such, in text and subject line.

later that monitor is now 16 years old. CRTs go out of focus which
cannot be adjusted out. They also lose brightness, and upping the

There _may_ be a focus trimmer inside. I wouldn't recommend someone not
at least somewhat familiar with such equipment - especially with failing
eyesight! - taking the back off, well, anything, but in particular
CRT-based equipment. (Not only high voltages inside, but perhaps more
danger of damaging the equipment.)
[]
to start budgeting for a new monitor. If it's an LCD/LED, make sure you
set the screen resolution in Windows the same as the monitor's native
resolution. You get fuzziness if you set the Windows resolution
different due to interpolation between pixels.

I'd agree with that advice (setting resolution to the monitor's native
one).

It's an LCD with VGA input. 1280x1024. Probably TN (twisted nematic)

https://www.superwarehouse.com/Micro...Monitor/1104-0
3-990325/p/431703

Sounds as if Microtek might have used the same number - or base number -
for both a CRT (as VLH has found) and an LCD (Paul) monitor.

Before buying any other LCD, you'd want to review
the connectors on the video card faceplate, to see
what is available. If you wanted some mythical display device

Something to match what outputs your video card (or computer if a
laptop) has; for an XP-generation machine, I'd be (very) surprised if it
hasn't got VGA (15 pin positions in 3 rows in a D-shaped connector,
often dark blue); it might have I've forgotten what it's called (DVI?),
but usually white, three rows of contacts on a rectangular grid with a
plus-shaped connector at one end; I'd be rather surprised if it has
HDMI. If a desktop machine, you _could_ get a graphics card with better
outputs, but finding one for which XP drivers are available is going to
be difficult.
[]
But we need to determine what the problem is; I got the impression that
it is the eyesight that is the problem, in which case higher resolution
won't help - Ken was asking about _enlarging_ the text. If it is a CRT
monitor, then switching to a _lower_ resolution will make things bigger
- I think XP will work down to 640 × 480 - but you'll obviously see less
at once of everything; this is manageable for things of your own design
(text, such as documents, email, and news), but especially with modern
web pages, would become pretty tiring for the amount of scrolling around
the page you will have to do. (Many web page designers design their
pages assuming a screen size - and browser window set to full screen -
that cause a problem to _most_ people, let alone those with
deteriorating vision; plus, they design them so that autowrap, which is
intrinsic to HTML, doesn't work.)

So bigger text and still able to see as much of whatever that you can
see now means - bigger screen, no two ways about it. You _might_ find a
bigger CRT monitor - if you can, they might even pay you to take it
away! - but that's not going to be _that_ much bigger, and it is also
going to be bulky. Failing that, a flat monitor: they _have_ plummeted
in price over the last decade or two. What _might_ be worth looking for
is a large, but old, one - with a _not_ huge intrinsic resolution. (For
example, I have a 20" on my old desktop machine, but it is only 1024, or
possibly 15xx, pixels - i. e. it just has large pixels!) I'm not sure
where you'd look for such, though - and also conveying what you want (to
search engines and the like) might be difficult. Also, early flat
monitors might have a backlight that has dimmed somewhat - you'd
definitely want to see them working before you buy.
If you have to buy a "new" one, make sure it is compatible with your
machine's outputs, see above. (I think for your purposes, unless you are
forced to get a _very_ big one, VGA will be fine.) Ideally get one with
the _lowest_ intrinsic resolution you can: end-of-line, or old but
unused stock; this should actually be cheaper, as most people want more
resolution!

Other than that, look into magnifying softwares. These let you see a
part of the screen enlarged: their disadvantage is of course that (a)
it's only a part of the screen, (b) the window it shows in obscures some
portion of the rest of the screen. _Most_ allow you to vary the amount
of magnification, the window size, and the window position. Some track
the mouse pointer - making it in effect a sort of magnifying glass.
There _is_ one provided with XP, I think. There are also several
freeware ones, and commercial ones varying from expensive to exorbitant;
I have seen them when taking my blind friends round exhibitions of aids
for the blind. (My friends are totally blind, but such exhibitions cater
for those of varying degrees of impairment.) The companies _tend_ to be
small companies, as it's a limited market, hence the high prices (it's
not their fault). [Most equipment with a Braille keyboard costs
significantly more than an ordinary laptop; my friend's notetaker - a
device of similar capability to a smartphone - cost him about 5000, I
think.] Another disadvantage is thus that they haven't the ability to
support their products very well, which means their support for XP
versions is likely to be near-nonexistent (though there _may_ be user
groups). It may be time to move on from XP ... )-:

Also _may_ be worth looking into high-contrast settings in XP (and
setting your browser to use your chosen colours overriding any the web
page designer has chosen, and/or use a browser add-on that lets you
switch to other settings - I have one that cycles round between yellow
on black, white on black, original).

Depending on how serious your impairment is, it might well be worth
contacting your local blind (or visually-impaired or
visually-handicapped, depending on local attitudes to political
correctness in what they are called - most actual VI/VH people in my
experience are not bothered by such concerns!) association or whatever,
to see if they can show you anything. Or, I don't know - maybe the
disability department of your local university/college/education
authority/employment authority _may_ be able to point you at something,
though probably not if you're not in their catchment population. But no
harm in asking.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Mary Poppins is a junkie" - bumper sticker on Julie Andrews' car in the '60s

Paul wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

KenK wrote:

Microtek 815c.

snipped my reply which was about old CRT monitors

It's an LCD with VGA input. 1280x1024. Probably TN (twisted nematic)

Ken K, the OP, said "Making CRT easier to read". I figured a user that
is physically sitting in front of the actual monitor would know if it
was a CRT or LCD. Not this time.

VanguardLH wrote in :

KenK wrote:

Microtek 815c.

Also, that monitor is probably around 16 years old. I saw a user in a
forum note in 2014 that he had this monitor for 11 years, so 5 years
later that monitor is now 16 years old. CRTs go out of focus which
cannot be adjusted out. They also lose brightness, and upping the
brightness results in loss of focus or contrast. Could be you've been
upping the brightness to compensate for a corroded cathode ray gun
(the heater). There is a trick of overheating the filament to burn
off the corrosion but it is hazardous: at the higher temperature and
current, the emitter could burn out and the monitor goes dead (no
electrons anymore to illuminate the phosphor on the inside of the
screen). Shops used to do that trick but had the customer sign a
waiver acknowledging the attempt could result in a completely dead CRT
monitor. I did it once accidentally when I reattached the multi-pin
connector on the back of the tube's neck resulting in the wrong
voltage on the heater, overheating it, realized what I did when the
screen became very bright, removed and repositioned the connector
(you'd think they'd be polarized), and the monitor was bright and I
even had to turn down the brightness. Gee, I fixed it. Luckily that
was back in tech school and any CRTs sent there for repair were
waivered because they had students working on them.

With such an old monitor, and with almost no shops working on them
anymore, try lowering the brightness to reduce the bloom of the
characters. That could result in an overly dim monitor that would
have sharper but dimmer characters, so just as hard to read as before.
You can't get around CRTs getting old and losing brightness and
focus. Time to start budgeting for a new monitor. If it's an
LCD/LED, make sure you set the screen resolution in Windows the same
as the monitor's native resolution. You get fuzziness if you set the
Windows resolution different due to interpolation between pixels.



My 815c is an LED, not CRT.


--
I love a good meal! That's why I don't cook.

KenK wrote:
VanguardLH wrote in :

KenK wrote:

Microtek 815c.
Also, that monitor is probably around 16 years old. I saw a user in a
forum note in 2014 that he had this monitor for 11 years, so 5 years
later that monitor is now 16 years old. CRTs go out of focus which
cannot be adjusted out. They also lose brightness, and upping the
brightness results in loss of focus or contrast. Could be you've been
upping the brightness to compensate for a corroded cathode ray gun
(the heater). There is a trick of overheating the filament to burn
off the corrosion but it is hazardous: at the higher temperature and
current, the emitter could burn out and the monitor goes dead (no
electrons anymore to illuminate the phosphor on the inside of the
screen). Shops used to do that trick but had the customer sign a
waiver acknowledging the attempt could result in a completely dead CRT
monitor. I did it once accidentally when I reattached the multi-pin
connector on the back of the tube's neck resulting in the wrong
voltage on the heater, overheating it, realized what I did when the
screen became very bright, removed and repositioned the connector
(you'd think they'd be polarized), and the monitor was bright and I
even had to turn down the brightness. Gee, I fixed it. Luckily that
was back in tech school and any CRTs sent there for repair were
waivered because they had students working on them.

With such an old monitor, and with almost no shops working on them
anymore, try lowering the brightness to reduce the bloom of the
characters. That could result in an overly dim monitor that would
have sharper but dimmer characters, so just as hard to read as before.
You can't get around CRTs getting old and losing brightness and
focus. Time to start budgeting for a new monitor. If it's an
LCD/LED, make sure you set the screen resolution in Windows the same
as the monitor's native resolution. You get fuzziness if you set the
Windows resolution different due to interpolation between pixels.



My 815c is an LED, not CRT.


At that age, it could be a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) using
Twisted Nematic (TN) technology. The backlights that drive white
light in transmission mode through the TN layer is provided by
CCFL (cold cathode fluorescent lamps). CCFL lamps last
around 25000 hours, and the light becomes "brownish" as they
age. Some of the electrode material inside the lamp, may
become plated onto the interior glass of the lamp.

Many LCD monitors don't make it to 25000 hours, because
the high voltage inverters (more than one present on
the larger monitors), those fail and can no longer
give the 700V to 1000VAC the lamps need. Each lamp
uses about 3W of electricity, at startup the tube voltage
is 1000V (no filament, cold start), and when the light starts
pouring out and the gas inside is conducting, the voltage drops to
around 700V. When the inverter packs in, many people
discard the monitor without repairing it. And the manufacturers
aid and abet this practice, by making it impossible to order
"exact replacement" components for maintenance of the LCD
panel and setup. Even if you have a spirit of adventure
and order replacement parts off the Internet, the repair
may not be entirely satisfactory.

Modern panels have switched to LED lighting solutions of
various sorts, so the HV inverters are gone. But that
transition likely happened after you got your Microtek.
I have an old-timer LCD panel here, the one I'm typing on,
and it's 1280x1024, and as far as I know, it has CCFL too.
The light from it, might be a tiny bit brownish now, but still
quite usable. I expect my eyeballs to wear out, before the
monitor does :-)

*******

You can check for video card info, by using Device Manager.

But a more fun way, is the portable EXE from here. GPU-Z.

https://www.techspot.com/downloads/4452-gpu-z.html

In this summary photo here, you can see all sorts of
info about the WinXP machine. It has 8GB of RAM and
a 7900GT video card. GPU-Z utility is the one on the
upper left. 4GB of my RAM is used by a RAM disk,
512MB of address space is wasted by the 7900GT, and
3.2GB of RAM is "available" for programs. Drivers in
Ring0 can bypass the memory license, and I suspect Microsoft
lawyers had a chat with the RAMDisk maker and the PAE
feature was removed from the code on later releases.
A newer version of the RAMDisk code, could not do this.

https://i.postimg.cc/XvRFJWC9/memory-Win-XP-machine.gif

Paul

In message , Paul
writes:
KenK wrote:
[]
My 815c is an LED, not CRT.

LCD, I think you mean. Probably with CCFL (tube) backlighting.

IMO, there are NO displays that are LED, apart from OLEDs; they're _all_
LCD, just with varying backlights. (Excluding plasmas.) I never thought
we should have let the (initially TV) industry get away with calling
their displays "LED", when it was only the backlight that had changed,
not the display panel. However, they _have_ got away with it, so we're
stuck with it. Anyway, you've got a flat-panel display, which means
pixels of a fixed size.
[]
Many LCD monitors don't make it to 25000 hours, because
the high voltage inverters (more than one present on
the larger monitors), those fail and can no longer
give the 700V to 1000VAC the lamps need. Each lamp

(Is it always AC?)
[]
Modern panels have switched to LED lighting solutions of
various sorts, so the HV inverters are gone. But that
transition likely happened after you got your Microtek.
I have an old-timer LCD panel here, the one I'm typing on,
and it's 1280x1024, and as far as I know, it has CCFL too.
The light from it, might be a tiny bit brownish now, but still
quite usable. I expect my eyeballs to wear out, before the
monitor does :-)

My Windows 98 laptop probably is the same. It's a bit yellower, but to
be honest I only notice when it's alongside a more modern machine. My
big old 20" LCD (4:3, not hi-res!) is rather dim.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

/Downton Abbey/ presented a version of the past that appealed to anyone who
had ever bought a National Trust tea towel. - Alison Graham, RT 2015/11/7-13

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:

Many LCD monitors don't make it to 25000 hours, because
the high voltage inverters (more than one present on
the larger monitors), those fail and can no longer
give the 700V to 1000VAC the lamps need. Each lamp

(Is it always AC?)

Absolutely.

The requirements are pretty strange, in that the
AC must be "pure". You can't have any DC at all in it.
If it isn't pure AC, the tube will die a premature death.

You only get a 25000 hour life, with high quality drive.

The piezo based inverters, are resonant, and make a
nice pure sine wave.

The transformer based inverters, it's harder to make
a nice sine on the primary. I don't know exactly how
they meet the requirements with those. Presumably
the transformer is resonant, or part of such a circuit,
but, is that enough ?

If the piezo ones become "unloaded" for a moment,
the voltage spikes (4kV) and the piezo gets cracked. So
if the tubes were sitting in sockets, and the socket
was loose, that could destroy the inverter.

Whereas the transformer ones, the insulation
can always fail on those and destroy them.

*******

If you take an LCD monitor (w. CCFL) apart, make *special note*
of how all the foil materials are positioned. They're
part of the circuit (capacitive coupling) and must be
put back the way you found them. There's an entire
book on the topic of care and feeding of CCFLs like that.
(A guy in sci.electronics wrote that book.)

Many companies have made mistakes when setting up their
illumination sources, which is why the move to LED
lighting is such a nice improvement. Any dope can do
LED lighting (and not have it die a year later). Of
course, bleed is always a problem, and the more dopey
manufacturers can't even seem to get that right. The
display is edge-lit and it helps to have hired someone
with a background in optics.

Paul

KenK wrote:

My 815c is an LED, not CRT.

See the Subject for your thread. There's what you said and what you
meant to say.

From what I looked up (instead of assuming), yep, it's an LCD. Besides
the forum post where a user back in 2014 said they had this monitor for
11 years (which would now be 16 years ago), I found another user
extolling his brand new purchase of this monitor and his post was dated
back to 2003. 16 years seems too old to be an LED computer monitor.
All the specs say this monitor is LCD, not LED. Even an online copy of
the manual never mentions LED, just LCD. LEDs are LCDs. The only
difference is the method of backlighting: LCDs use CCFLs (cold-cathode
fluorescent lamps) on the sides of a diffuser panel while LEDs use,
well, LEDs either for edge lighting on the sides of the diffuser panel
or a full array of LEDs behind the diffuser panel (the latter of which
permits local dimming to improve contrast).

The Microtek 815c's pixel size is 0.28 mm for an 18" monitor. For
ailing eyesight, you'll want a higher resolution (and bigger) monitor
with smaller pixel size or increased pixel density, and then up the DPI
setting in Windows. The larger monitor at higher resolution will make
the text characters smaller in size, so you compensate by upping the DPI
(so text uses more pixels).

I didn't bother to check further into your old monitor. If it has an
option for local dimming or adaptive brightness (which requires
full-array LED backlighting instead of edge LED backlighting), try
turning that off. I had it on an LED TV monitor and it sucked as the
picture was too often dimmed, slow to toggle modes when the scene
changed, or if would keep toggling from dim to bright. The technology
might work but the implementation sucked in my LED monitor. However, it
is likely an LCD monitor, not an LED monitor which could have full-array
backlighting to support local dimming. Local dimming is to make blacks
look blacker but only works when watching in a dark room. See
https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/pict.../local-dimming. Sounded
light something I wanted but found there was too much lag, like when
someone stepped out of dark room into the sunlight outside and the
dimming took almost a second to turn off, so I'd see the change.

Even LCD monitors can have a blooming effect (aka clouding aka screen
uniformity). The backlighting may not be even across the entire
diffuser panel.

Since you *do* have an LCD monitor (not a CRT as stated in your
Subject), make sure you set the Windows screen resolution to match the
native resolution of the LCD monitor. Native resolution per specs for
that monitor is 1280 x 1024 at 75 Hz. If you use a screen resolution
higher or lower, interpolation gets used in painting the screen objects.
If you are using a higher screen resolution in Windows, going to native
resolution of the monitor means the screen will get smaller, and also
the text characters. Set Windows to use the same resolution for its
screen as the native resolution of the LCD monitor, and then use DPI to
up the size of the text. You can do the same if you go to a larger
monitor with higher resolution. The higher resolution will actually
make text get smaller (at the same DPI, the text will still use the same
number of pixels or dots), so to increase the text size you would up the
DPI setting in Windows.

In message , VanguardLH
writes:
[]
The Microtek 815c's pixel size is 0.28 mm for an 18" monitor. For
ailing eyesight, you'll want a higher resolution (and bigger) monitor
with smaller pixel size or increased pixel density,

I disagree: he really needs _larger_ pixel size. He'll have difficulty
finding it, though, as they aren't making them (except for pitch-side
and other advertising displays).

and then up the DPI
setting in Windows.

Agreed, that's needed. Doesn't give _much_ range variation, though )-:.

The larger monitor at higher resolution will make
the text characters smaller in size

So _isn't_ what's needed; however, is probably all that's available.

, so you compensate by upping the DPI
(so text uses more pixels).

Indeed. Probably best worth trying - if he hasn't already - on his
existing monitor.
[]
native resolution of the LCD monitor. Native resolution per specs for
that monitor is 1280 x 1024

If you say so ...

at 75 Hz.

Hmm. Not sure I'd call that a resolution (-:.


If you use a screen resolution
higher or lower, interpolation gets used in painting the screen objects.

Agreed.

If you are using a higher screen resolution in Windows, going to native
resolution of the monitor means the screen will get smaller, and also

Will show a desktop (or whatever) with fewer items on it. I'd normally
call that getting bigger (assuming the monitor's electronics autosize,
which most do), but _in terms of pixel numbers only_, yes, it will get
smaller.

the text characters. Set Windows to use the same resolution for its
screen as the native resolution of the LCD monitor

I think we're all agreed on that one.

, and then use DPI to
up the size of the text.

And that one.

You can do the same if you go to a larger
monitor with higher resolution. The higher resolution will actually
make text get smaller (at the same DPI, the text will still use the same
number of pixels or dots), so to increase the text size you would up the
DPI setting in Windows.

As far as you can. On this (W7) machine, the default choices are only
100% and 125%; if I click "Set custom text size (DPI)", it looks as if
that adds only 150% and 200%; IIRR, XP didn't even have that option.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"He hasn't one redeeming vice." - Oscar Wilde

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

In message , VanguardLH
writes:
[]
The Microtek 815c's pixel size is 0.28 mm for an 18" monitor. For
ailing eyesight, you'll want a higher resolution (and bigger) monitor
with smaller pixel size or increased pixel density,

I disagree: he really needs _larger_ pixel size. He'll have difficulty
finding it, though, as they aren't making them (except for pitch-side
and other advertising displays).

Larger pixel size (aka pixel pitch) means more grainy painting of
everything: text and graphics. His monitor has 0.28 mm. If, for
example, he went to a monitor with 0.36 mm then everything would look
more coarse.

I remember being at some computer store with a buddy from work (we both
worked in QA for hardware and software development). There was a
fantastic sale price on a monitor on display, but it looked fuzzy. Both
of us played with the monitor's controls to see if it had been setup
incorrectly and if we could get a sharp screen. Nope, nothing we did
would make the display look clearer. Then we noticed in small print on
the sales flyer next to the monitor that it had 0.36 mm pixel size.
Geez, no wonder it was so fuzzy.

Think about: if there were only 1 pixel for the entire size of the
screen, there would be nothing to see except just that one pixel. You
couldn't paint any characters and the only graphic you could paint would
be one large circle or rectangle.

Or consider the old dot-matrix printers. At first, they had a 5x7
(width x height) dot matrix to print a character. The NLQ (Near Letter
Quality) dot-matrix printers would make 2 passes. The platten moved
slightly down on the reverse pass effectively doubling the number of
dots used to print a character. NLQ doubled the dot density meaning you
had more dots per inch. You want more pixels per inch to provide finer
granularity. The larger the pixel pitch, the less of them per inch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch
"Dot pitch may be measured in linear units (with smaller numbers meaning
higher resolution), usually millimeters (mm), or as a rate, for example
dots per inch (with a larger number meaning higher resolution)."

With *smaller* pixels, you can get a higher DPI at the same character
size hence a smoother character. That's for the native resolution of
the monitor. Setting a higher DPI in Windows means using more dots or
pixels which are fixed in size, so the character gets larger and easier
to read for those having a tough time reading tiny characters.

and then up the DPI setting in Windows.

Agreed, that's needed. Doesn't give _much_ range variation, though )-:.

I don't remember XP's settings for DPI. In Windows 7, you can select
pre-defined settings, like 100% (96 DPI), 125% (120 DPI), 150% (144
DPI), or 200% (192 DPI), or you can use a slider for a variable DPI.
From what I found online for DPI setting in XP:

https://i-technet.sec.s-msft.com/en-...-us,VS.85).png

So, you could use the presets of normal (96 DPI, or 100%) or large (120
DPI, or 125%), or set a custom DPI. When you elected custom sized, you
got:

https://i-technet.sec.s-msft.com/en-...-us,VS.85).png

That's the same slider and drop-down list dialog that is in Windows 7.
There are LOTS of settings for DPI.


The larger monitor at higher resolution will make
the text characters smaller in size

So _isn't_ what's needed; however, is probably all that's available.

If the larger monitor supports higher resolutions (which is usually the
case) then more pixels are available per inch. However, fonts are
defined at specific heights, and a higher resolution which means smaller
pixels means the characters will be smaller. So you use MORE pixels per
character by upping the DPI.

native resolution of the LCD monitor. Native resolution per specs for
that monitor is 1280 x 1024

If you say so ...

at 75 Hz.

Hmm. Not sure I'd call that a resolution (-:.

That is the native screen resolution found online for the specifications
of the OP's Microtek 815c LCD monitor.

You can do the same if you go to a larger
monitor with higher resolution. The higher resolution will actually
make text get smaller (at the same DPI, the text will still use the same
number of pixels or dots), so to increase the text size you would up the
DPI setting in Windows.

As far as you can. On this (W7) machine, the default choices are only
100% and 125%; if I click "Set custom text size (DPI)", it looks as if
that adds only 150% and 200%; IIRR, XP didn't even have that option.

Must be a restriction in your configuration of Windows 7 or what the
monitor reports to Windows for its specs (if you're using HDMI).

For Windows XP, I found pics of the dialogs at:
https://i-technet.sec.s-msft.com/en-...-us,VS.85).png
https://i-technet.sec.s-msft.com/en-...-us,VS.85).png

For Windows 7, here are the pics for DPI settings:
https://www.sevenforums.com/attachme...w7-display.jpg
then click on "Set custom text size (DPI)" to see:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/Fq0XS.png